All the stadium stories you missed since my last roundup while you were debating who would win: Incredible Hulk or Kris Dielman.

In San Diego, @Mattable, a.k.a. Matt Awbrey, an aide for San Diego Councilman Kevin Faulconer, tweeted that Chargers' special counsel Mark Fabiani had told a gathering of the business-oriented Lincoln Club of San Diego County on Feb. 29 that the "pieces to the puzzle are now all on the table" for a Chargers stadium. Piecing them together, of course, is another story.

Two days later, Mayor Jerry Sanders told another crowd, at a local real estate conference, that building a stadium at his and the team's preferred site in East Village would cost about $1.1 billion while building a stadium and more at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal, as U-T San Diego’s ownership and editorial board advocate, would cost about $2.5 billion and require approval from 23 agencies.

That's $1 billion more than a Jan. 22 U-T San Diego editorial estimated the mega-project could cost.

A mayoral aide later said $2.5 billion stems from a Chargers projection 10 years ago, when the team estimated building a stadium on the waterfront would be double the cost of building elsewhere, and that the 23-agency figure came from the Port of San Diego, which operates the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal and owns the land around it.

I asked a mayoral spokesman for a list of the 23 agencies and greater detail about where the dollar figure came from Monday. By day's end, I'd received the list and an elaboration on the $2.5 billion figure.

A mayoral spokeswoman replied, "That was a 'back-of-the-napkin' estimate by Port Chair Lou Smith based primarily on the structural engineering challenges posed by building so close to the water."

As you'll recall, I've been waiting nearly two weeks for the office to respond to a records request about the city's stadium consultant.

Asked about the mayor's estimate via email Monday, U-T San Diego Vice Chairman & CEO John Lynch said ‪the port and the mayor "seem to be interested only in ginning up opposition to a vision that they refuse to explore" and added, "It is frustrating to see these public servants putting a price tag on ideas they have refused to even entertain in any responsible way."‬

This week, for the second time in six weeks, a U-T San Diego editorial pushing a waterfront stadium was given prominent placement on a Sunday front-page.

In it, the media company’s ownership and editorial board called for a countywide public vote on developing the waterfront in the spring. The editorial didn’t address how much that vote would cost, but weeks ago when Fabiani suggested a public vote on a stadium would slip to early 2013, the City Clerk’s Office told me that a standalone election on the issue in San Diego could cost more than $3 million.

The North County Times’ Chris Nichols reported that county supervisors Ron Roberts and Dianne Jacob are privately discussing a new Chargers stadium with Mayor Jerry Sanders, something U-T San Diego readers have known since the first meeting on Nov. 30, 2009. The U-T story on that first meeting quoted a statement the trio released 45 minutes after the meeting ended. The statement read: “The Chargers are a regional asset and helping them will require regional cooperation. This is the first of several meetings that we will have to discuss ideas for solving the significant challenges that lie ahead.”

Roberts told Nichols if the county were guaranteed to receive increased property tax revenue as a result of a stadium opening and attracting new businesses nearby, it would consider using some of that revenue to pay down the project's debt in future years. Two of the county’s 18 mayors also commented. La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid lamented the attempt “to tax people who can't even afford to go to the football games," and said, "It's convenient to use the term 'regional' when it's for a special interest." Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall (no relation) added that, “I'd have to have a 110 percent guarantee that if tax dollars are used, the taxpayer is going to be paid back."

The story included a poll that asked readers who should finance a new stadium. Possible answers included the team, the team and city taxpayers, the team and county taxpayers and no one. That last answer ended with “Let them go to L.A.” At day's end Monday, the poll showed the vast majority of the 85 people who responded about evenly split between those who want the team and county to pay (41 percent) and others who say the team alone should (40 percent), with far fewer people saying they don’t want to pay anything (14 percent) and the smallest number of people saying they want city taxpayers and the team picking up the tab (5 percent).

Over at Patch.com, Ken Stone blogged about the North County Times story and seized the opportunity to conduct a similar poll. It asked: Should county residents pay taxes toward a new Chargers stadium in San Diego? By quitting time Monday, the results of 184 respondents broke down to about 43 percent yes, 36 percent and 19 percent unsure.

Elsewhere, boltsfromtheblue.com blogger John Gennaro saw a Chargers connection to the Padres coverage on a new Fox Sports channel. “Having a television station to cover the Chargers for more than just a 6 minute segment for the news that evening will go a long way towards educating the masses (yay!) and increasing the fervor surrounding the Bolts,” he wrote.

In Oakland, TV station KTVU reported that the city is moving ahead on spending $3.5 million on a development team to study how to keep the Raiders, the baseball Athletics and the basketball Warriors. One line from the story? “It might be the most difficult play in baseball, but now a new group says it can pull off an equally tricky "triple play" for the city of Oakland.”

Oakland's Community and Economic Development Committee Tuesday selected a team of developers, architects and consultants to design a new "Coliseum city" with hotels, retail store and at least one new stadium on the same site where the Raiders, A's and Warriors play now.

In Santa Clara, that same day, the city's stadium authority approved a ground lease for a new 49ers stadium, Stephanie M. Lee of the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The stadium deal is nearing the goal line, one Reuters headline declared. One potential final hurdle was a court hearing Monday over whether the stadium financing deal is subject to a new vote of the public, reporter Philipp Gollner explained.

Mike Rosenberg of the San Jose Mercury News reported Monday night that a judge cleared the way for construction to begin in the spring.

In Los Angeles, the National Football League’s potential return largely remained on the sidelines. It worked its way into a Pasadena Star-News essay by Robert Rector about how L.A. lost its sports mojo. Professional football “seems tantalizingly close at times,” he wrote. “There's just one stumbling block: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says there hasn't been any discussion about adding to the league's 32 teams and he's not interested in shifting a franchise. It almost makes you wish the Raiders were back in town.”

Of course, “be careful what you wish for” is a cliché for a reason. Hence Rector’s “almost.”

The L.A. stadium story got some brief run in an overview of the city’s mayoral race by Los Angeles Times reporter Kate Lithicum and on Twitter, when @TheCityMaven tweeted that one of the mayoral candidates favors a stadium proposal in City of Industry over one in downtown Los Angeles, which the candidate believes would be bad in the short term for the city’s convention business.

In St. Louis, the Rams did what was widely expected and rejected an offer by the city’s stadium officials to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome.

The team now has until May 1 to make a counteroffer. Arbitration may be necessary to work out a resolution starting on June 15 if the two sides can’t or won’t do it themselves.

As The Los Angeles Times’ Sam Farmer wrote, this is "sure to spark further speculation that the Rams are positioning themselves for an eventual return to Los Angeles, a market they left after the 1994 season.”

Of note, Farmer’s story included survey results released in Los Angeles recently that shows a fair level of support among city residents for building a downtown football stadium. Farmer noted something that I shared with my Twitter followers when I read the release: The survey was taken nearly a year ago. What’s next in Los Angeles? Backers of the downtown proposal hope to have a completed and approved environmental impact report by midsummer, Farmer reported.

So what’s next in St. Louis? Matthew Hathaway of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that it’s now time for the Rams to go on offense. The team has two months to outline its vision for a St. Louis Rams stadium after turning down the city’s introductory $124 million offer. Hathaway provided some great context in his latest story:

Taken as a whole, the CVC plan lacked the grand scale of several recent NFL stadium rehabs, like the $375 million overhaul of Kansas City's Arrowhead Stadium or the $250 million renovation of Sun Life Stadium in Miami.

The CVC plan also called for the Rams to pay for 52 percent of the $124 million project. That's a bigger share than what was paid by NFL teams in recent, more expensive rehab projects in Kansas City, Chicago or New Orleans.

In Minnesota, a stadium deal materialized Thursday for a $975 million venue where the Metrodome is located in downtown Minneapolis.

Patrick Condon of the Associated Press wrote a lede that a San Diegan might read as being about the Chargers. His story began: “It has taken the Minnesota Vikings nearly a decade to get this far in their quest for a new stadium. There is a lot more work to be done.”

Minnpost.com’s Brian Lambert rounded up other stories about the stadium deal. In particular, he highlighted two points two reporters at Minnesota Public Radio raised that bear repeating for stadium followers in other cities.

If gambling or convention center tax revenue comes in lower than expected, the state will still have to dip into other pots of cash to cover bond payments, MPR’s Catharine Richert reported.

Colleague Tim Nelson shared that Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton acknowledged that the state’s share is about a third more than the limit he set last year.

“It's the best deal we could negotiate,” Dayton said. “I'm not entirely pleased with it. And others are not either.”

Looking forward, Minnesota faces a couple of big questions: MPR’s Nelson wondered if it would be risky to use gambling revenue to pay for a stadium.

For his part, the St. Paul Pioneer-Press’ Frederick Melo asked if a new Vikings stadium would spur more growth than the Metrodome.

But the biggest question, naturally, is what’s next?

Star-Tribune reporter Rachel E. Stassen-Berger answered that by saying expect stadium supporters to “go into blitz formation.” Well, one of her pun-loving headline writers did. She used a different pun at the top of her story.

Gov. Mark Dayton will lead a rally at the Capitol on Tuesday for the proposed stadium and may hit the road later this month for similar rallies across the state.

That's just the beginning as business leaders, labor, lobbyists and stadium supporters launch an all-out blitz to push the $975 million project over the goal line in the coming weeks.

In other news, Philadelphia’s football stadium is getting props for “going greener,” and Miami’s stadium is in the news for its technology.

Thanks to a new solar panel and wind turbine project, the Eagles “expect to boast the largest environmentally clean electrical output in the NFL,” The (Allentown, Pa.) Morning Call’s Nick Fierro reported. What that means is that more than 11,000 solar panels will be spread over the roof, the south side of the stadium and the north parking lot and the north and south stadium walls will be topped with 14 wind turbines, seven on each side.

Sun Life Stadium in Miami, meanwhile, will become more technologically advanced with a goal of getting patrons text messages about parking, crowded exits and bad weather, reported Mashable's Sam Laird.

Also, the Sports Business Journal’s Eric Fisher dropped some knowledge from 30,000 feet at an industry conference when he tweeted that the NFL’s vice president of club business development told a crowd to expect smaller football stadiums in the future.

A related tweet from Fisher noted that the trend toward smaller football stadiums follows a similar move in baseball “where slightly compressed supply helps boost demand.”

Additionally, the Green Bay Packers, the only team in the NFL that can sell shares of stock to the public, announced the results of its latest offering. It sold 268,000 shares and raked in $67 million for planned stadium improvements, according to the Associated Press. The report made an interesting point: “The shares weren't cheap -- they cost $250 each, plus handling fees of $25 in the U.S. and $35 in Canada. They're also essentially worthless.”

The story continued:

Packers stock isn't like regular stock. Its value doesn't increase, there are no dividends, it has virtually no resale value and it doesn't give buyers any advantage over the 93,000 people on the waiting list for season tickets.

What buyers do get is a piece of paper declaring them a team owner and conferring rights to attend and vote at the annual stockholder meeting, which is held at Lambeau Field each summer before training camp. They also get access to a special line of shareholder apparel.

In closing, a gift for those who made it this far. The Wall Street Journal created a chart that allows you to sort NFL stadiums built since 1992 by public and private funding and media market size. It's pretty interesting.

The chart accompanies the Journal's overview of the Rams' stadium situation. Of note, the paper's analysis includes this:

Taxpayers have shouldered about four-fifths of the funding for NFL stadiums in the eight smallest media markets with new facilities since 1995, according to an analysis of data from the consulting firm Convention Sports & Leisure International. During that period, taxpayers have funded less than a fifth of the cost of NFL stadiums in the eight largest media markets where new facilities have been built or are planned, according to the data.

As always, let me know what you thought and what I missed. And for more timely stadium coverage, factoids and fun, follow me on Twitter @SDuncovered.